Medical negligence disputes do not fall within the scope of Section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which provides for disputes touching the business of a co-operative society to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication.

Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—Complainant in O.P. 1153/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur is the appellant. Complainant alleged before the District Forum that he was admitted in the first opposite party-hospital for treatment, he underwent surgery in July, 1997, and the surgery was performed by the second opposite party. After the surgery he had severe pain. When he complained to the second opposite party, he was assured, in the course of time that would disappear by exercise. Inspite of exercise for a long period, the defect did not disappear. So he had to undergo another surgery. He is a manual worker; his endeavour to work and earn for his living is affected by the negligent treatment imparted by the opposite parties. Therefore, he wanted a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation. Version was filed. The District Forum proceeded to hear the complainant’s Counsel and the respondent. On hearing them the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that under Section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short, the Act) the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The said dismissal is challenged in this appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged, the view taken by the District Forum that the complaint is not maintainable before it in view of Section 69(1) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is not correct with due regard to the nature of the dispute involved. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant that dispute touching the business of the Society should be one connected with actual business or such other matter and it cannot include a case of medical negligence. Reliance was also made by the learned Counsel on the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1320, Decan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. Reliance was also made by the learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1995 (3) CPR 412., Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Santha & Anr., wherein the Supreme Court went into the question of jurisdiction of the Commission and Forum to deal with the case of medical negligence and held that these FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have got legal background and, therefore, they are competent to adjudicate upon the said issues. This decision is relied on in support of his argument as to competency of Forum to adjudicate the matter. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent sought to support the view of the District Forum maintaining that even assuming that the Registrar of Co-operative Society himself may not be able to adjudicate a case of medical negligence, since he could transfer such type of dispute to any person who has been invested with power by the Government to deal with the same, there could be no difficulty for the body constituted under Section 70(1) of the Act to deal with the matter. Reference was made by the learned Counsel on the decision of this Commission in V. Viswanatha Pillai & Anr. v. The Branch Manager, Kottayam D.C.B. Ltd. & Anr., 1996 (1) CPR 453.

3. The whole argument of the appellant is based on the character and nature of the business. Here the complainant is not a member of the Society. Unless it is shown, the case of negligence in treatment by the doctors of a co-operative hospital could acquire the character of “business” mentioned in Section 69(1), a dispute touching the said business cannot fall within the scope of Section 69(1) so as to require the same to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. Undoubtedly medical negligence involves adjudication of the question whether the doctor attended the patient with the care and deligence expected of him. It will involve the question whether hospital was equipped for attending the ailment of the patient. This involves both legal and factual questions and, therefore, normally such questions cannot be treated to have been intended to be dealt with by